tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-321925492015-02-24T11:11:59.242-08:00Appetite for ProfitMichele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-78079598080741962012013-06-11T18:51:00.003-07:002013-06-11T18:51:53.059-07:00New home for blog: Eat Drink PoliticsDear readers: I have moved all of my blog posts over to my new and improved website, <a href="http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/" rel="nofollow">Eat Drink Politics.</a> You can find my blog <a href="http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/blog/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-74004596078530496872011-01-10T07:11:00.000-08:002011-01-10T07:11:55.520-08:00Last post on Blogspot - visit me on my new websiteDear readers, I have switched over to blogging with WordPress, which is now integrated into my new and improved website <a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/">here</a>. There you will find my first post of 2011:<br /><h1 class="entry-title" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2011/01/07/top-5-food-policy-gains-in-2010-and-whats-lagging-behind/"><span style="font-size: small;">Top 5 food policy gains in 2010 (and what’s lagging behind)</span></a></h1><h1 class="entry-title" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Thanks and see you there! </span></h1>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-60543360342574364212010-11-10T21:01:00.000-08:002010-11-10T21:07:37.591-08:00Happy Meal Makeover: How a Healthy Food Coalition Defeated a Fast Food Icon<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TNt4P3dZGTI/AAAAAAAAAJw/MALKQ_52ozA/s1600/happy_meal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TNt4P3dZGTI/AAAAAAAAAJw/MALKQ_52ozA/s200/happy_meal.jpg" width="192" /></a> </div>On election day, while most of the nation was distracted with the mid-term election, another vote was taking place in San Francisco City Hall. The Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance to place limits—based on specific nutrition criteria—on how toys are marketed by restaurants in the city and county of San Francisco.<br /><br />Most media accounts got the story wrong. <i>The Los Angeles Times</i> for example, called it a “<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103" target="_blank">Happy Meal ban</a>.” (It’s true that, according to McDonald’s, none of the current Happy Meals meet the criteria, but that’s fixable.) The real story is, how did McDonald’s—the nation’s most beloved fast food brand—get so beat up?<br /><br /><a name='more'></a><br />It’s easy to dismiss this victory as just another liberal law passed in “wacko” San Francisco. While the majority of the Board of Supervisors do lean to the left, passing this bill was by no means a slam dunk. To the contrary, it took months of organizing and coalition-building to get the job done. Along the way, proponents faced numerous obstacles, including underhanded lobbying, deceptive polling, and more.<br /><br />How did they do it? According to Judy Grant, <a href="http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/value-meal" target="_blank">Value [the] Meal</a> campaign director for Corporate Accountability International (CAI), the lead organizing group on the ground, “the old-fashioned way – we hit the phones and the pavement.” [full disclosure: I'm on the advisory board of CAI's Value [the] Meal campaign.] Once the bill was introduced by Supervisor Eric Mar, CAI quickly realized the industry would defeat it without a solid grassroots voice. Grant explains:<br /><blockquote>We worked with Mar’s office to form a coalition from every corner of the City. Many San Franciscans felt the time for this law had come, so it was easy to find many residents in support. We took local activists to farmers’ markets and food-related events to get their fellow San Franciscans involved.</blockquote>Many other organizations also played an important role, including the <a href="http://www.publichealthadvocacy.org/" target="_blank">California Center for Public Health Advocacy</a>, <a href="http://www.preventioninstitute.org/" target="_blank">Prevention Institute</a>, and the <a href="http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/" target="_blank">Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood</a>, whose mailing lists and resources were critical to garnering support.<br /><br />Testimony from doctors at the University of California, San Francisco was also key. Pediatricians told heartbreaking stories about how the children they see suffer.<br /><br />Another critical organizing group was the Bayview Food Guardians, based in the low-income San Francisco neighborhood of Bayview / Hunters Point. Here is an excerpt from Food Guardian Jameela Toups’ powerful testimony:<br /><blockquote>The youth in my community are getting diet-related diseases like diabetes and hypertension at younger and younger ages. This is largely because of an unhealthy food environment that lacks fresh, affordable food and instead has an overabundance of fast food and relentless fast food marketing, including these toy incentives. </blockquote><blockquote>We at Food Guardians have helped some folks in our neighborhood change the way they eat. But we can’t reach everyone. There are hundreds of others that we have not been able to talk to yet. To reach everyone, we would need millions more in funding. </blockquote><blockquote>But the fast food industry has those millions. They can reach pretty much everyone, almost 24-7, and their message is counter to what we want our neighbors – particularly our youth – to hear. We try to reach youth before their habits are set, but far too often the industry has gotten to them first.</blockquote>All of this organizing and testimony was needed to go up against a full-court press counter-lobbing effort by McDonald’s and the California Restaurant Association, the industry’s powerful statewide lobbying arm.<br /><br />At the bill’s very first hearing, dozens of local supporters showed up while McDonald’s flew lobbyists in from corporate headquarters to testify, including the company’s “director of nutrition.” But the hearing got really bizarre when a <a href="http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/09/did-mcdonalds-bus-in-chinese.php" target="_blank">parade of Mandarin-speaking individuals testified against the bill</a>, each with similar talking points. One of these speakers was even seen consulting a script in the hallway.<br /><br />Given that most Chinese people in San Francisco speak Cantonese and not Mandarin, were these alleged McDonald’s supporters even locals? “We were not able to confirm that they were from San Francisco, though we got the sense they were not,” said Supervisor Mar in a statement. “We’re also not able to confirm their connection to the fast-food industry. It’s all very suspicious.”<br /><br />Another underhanded move involved expensive polling conducted by the California Restaurant Association that allegedly showed San Franciscans were largely opposed to the bill. But the survey questions were so biased that the tactic actually backfired. For example, the lobbyists asked, do you agree or disagree that “It should be up to parents, not city politicians, to decide what to feed their children,” and, “A working parent coming home after a tough day should have the option of occasionally purchasing a meal with a toy for their child.” Not exactly objective scientific survey methods.<br /><br />While San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (who was just elected lieutenant governor of California) has promised to veto the bill, organizers were able to secure a veto-proof majority, which was a tremendous effort in itself, requiring hundreds of phone calls and hours of meetings to get the key swing vote to come on board.<br /><br />So how much money did McDonald’s and friends spend on lobbying against the measure? According to Deborah Lapidus, senior organizer for Corporate Accountability’s Value [the] Meal, at least tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars. But no amount of corporate cash was enough to overcome the passion of a few hundred community leaders and residents who said enough is enough. As San Francisco is often a national leader on health issues, other cities are sure to follow. McDonald’s may have to start loading up a few more buses.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-35565587513658343182010-10-31T12:44:00.000-07:002010-10-31T13:09:06.241-07:00One health blogger's change of heart over Pepsi Refresh<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TM3Bi_df7JI/AAAAAAAAAJs/jOHJtgiJZo8/s1600/button_pepsi.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TM3Bi_df7JI/AAAAAAAAAJs/jOHJtgiJZo8/s1600/button_pepsi.gif" /></a></div><br />My readers know by now that I am not exactly a fan of PepsiCo's mega-marketing campaign disguised as philanthropy known as the <a href="http://www.refresheverything.com/">Pepsi Refresh Project</a>. As I wrote about previously, the nation's largest food company is <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/08/back-to-school-with-pepsico-stealth.html">exploiting</a> schoolchildren as young as age 6 in an effort to brand itself as the world's savior.<br /><br />Even&nbsp; healthy food projects are <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-are-sustainable-ag-groups-stumping.html">lining up</a> to feed at the trough of Pepsi Refresh, without a hint of shame that these corporate, tax-deductible donations rely on sales of Cheetos and Mountain Dew.<br /><br />So I was surprised and disappointed when I noticed fellow health blogger, <a href="http://meganyarbrough.com/">Megan Yarbrough</a> post to Twitter a call to vote for a Pepsi Refresh project. Because I know we are usually on the same page, I reached out to her privately with a direct message and asked that she not promote this awful program. She responded immediately, acknowledging my concern and recently <a href="http://meganyarbrough.com/?p=336">posted</a> to her blog about how I changed her mind. Here is that eloquent post in its entirety:<br /><a name='more'></a><blockquote>I’ll admit, when I first heard about the Pepsi Refresh Project, I couldn’t have been more on-board with the idea if I tried.</blockquote><blockquote>Times are tight right now. And although we’re in a recession, that hasn’t stopped the problems we face as a nation from continuing to grow. If anything, it’s worsened them. The simple fact is: communities need money. And nonprofits desperately need money just to continue the great work they are doing – forget about starting new, game-changing initiatives. So at first, I saw Pepsi Refresh as a great opportunity for the do-gooders of our country to get the financing they require to really improve the lives of people all over our nation.</blockquote><blockquote>I thought it was so fantastic, in fact, that I was involved in more than one attempt to enter the Pepsi Refresh Project. Both for great causes. Sure Pepsi is a part of a lot of the problems we face as a nation. But shouldn’t corporations give back more often, particularly in times of great need? And while I wasn’t naive enough to not recognize that the entire Pepsi Refresh Project was a brilliant PR move, I thought it was also great opportunity for worthy causes to fund amazing projects all across the nation.</blockquote><blockquote><b>I was wrong</b>, but it took me awhile to accept my realization that Pepsi Refresh ultimately harms our society – not helps it. That realization came to me after I became more involved with the food revolution movement and read Michele Simon’s book, Appetite for Profit.</blockquote><blockquote>PepsiCo, not just a maker of soda, but also the maker of Frito-Lay products, isn’t just a <i>part</i> of a lot of the problems we face as a nation –<span style="color: #993366;"><b> PepsiCo itself is a huge problem</b></span>. If we ever hope to change the direction our country is headed, we need to fundamentally change the way we function as a society. We need to change our understanding of food, and change the way we eat. The type of food and beverages we need to reclaim our nation’s health really don’t come ready-made in a box, bag, or can.</blockquote><blockquote>As <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-are-sustainable-ag-groups-stumping.html">Michele Simon writes on her blog</a>, “these grants give credibility to the notion that we can (and should) rely on Big Food to fix our broken food system. But nothing could be further from the truth. PepsiCo is happy to spend relatively small amounts of money in exchange for getting to hitch its PR wagon to the likes of farmers markets and school gardens.”</blockquote><blockquote>Yet, knowing this, I gave in last week when a cause that means a lot to me asked me to retweet their Pepsi Refresh project to my followers. That’s when Michele Simon (<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/appetite4profit">@Appetite4Profit</a>) sent me a direct message to remind me that as a public health advocate, I really should not – cannot – promote the Pepsi Refresh Project. She put it in terms I could easily relate to given my involvement in tobacco control: “imagine if PM [Philip Morris] were promoting it.”</blockquote><blockquote>Big Food corporations are following the tobacco industry’s footsteps step-by-step. And I mean exactly. If you read about the tobacco industry’s deceptive marketing, their false health claims, the life-saving legislation they constantly defeat with the millions of dollars they spend on lobbying, the way they promote their products overseas in the developing world, and the way they set up fake science institutes to conduct “research” … and substitute ‘Big Tobacco’ for ‘Big Food’ – the two can be used interchangeably.</blockquote><blockquote>Food companies spend over $36 billion a year to market their products. They wouldn’t spend that kind of money, nor would they give away millions of dollars in the name of philanthropy, if they didn’t know for a fact that it is <i>effective</i> in getting people to buy their products. They want you to think that they aren’t part of America’s health problem – they are part of the solution. And, of course (just like the tobacco industry), they love to remind you that personal responsibility is part of the solution as well, since they know you don’t really want to give up those dinners from a bag either.</blockquote><blockquote>So, my friends, that is why I will no longer be tweeting about your very-worthy project or organization’s attempt to win a Pepsi Refresh grant. I admire your work, but I can’t go against the very ideas I preach.</blockquote><blockquote>If you’re interested in learning more (or if perhaps you think I’m crazy), I highly encourage you to check out Michele Simon’s blog, <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/">Appetite for Profit</a>, as well as <a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/">her book</a>. One <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/08/back-to-school-with-pepsico-stealth.html">particular post worth reading</a> describes how elementary school students in Illinois expressed their thanks to Pepsi after winning a Pepsi Refresh grant. Hopefully you’ll see the problem with the picture painted for you. Another great resource is <a href="http://valuethemeal.blogspot.com/">Value the Meal</a>, a blog by Corporate Accountability International.</blockquote>Thank you Megan, for saying it so well. But mostly, thank you for taking a look at this issue more deeply, being willing to change your mind, and then speaking out about it. And if your friends are also harassing you to vote, just point them to Megan's post instead. <br /><br />In the wake of Jon Stewart's recent call for a more civilized discourse in our nation, this experience gives me hope. Maybe if we could each stop and listen to each other, learn about an issue, and not react in haste, mindlessly forwarding emails, posting to Facebook, or retweeting what others (even our friends) want us to, things could get a little better. Maybe.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-68501979016671239962010-10-10T16:54:00.000-07:002010-10-31T12:48:45.894-07:00Too noisy to save the environment? Frito-Lay responds to SunChips compostable bag debacle<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TLJS_VaKQxI/AAAAAAAAAJo/jJc53WFWwnc/s1600/Sun-Chips.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TLJS_VaKQxI/AAAAAAAAAJo/jJc53WFWwnc/s200/Sun-Chips.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />These days, many companies--and especially food companies--are falling over each other to prove their green cred to consumers. But given the usual challenges of trying to save the planet while you're destroying it, most efforts amount to a whole lot of greenwashing.<br /><br />So when Frito-Lay <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2010-10-05-sunchips05_ST_N.htm">announced</a> last week that its SunChips compostable bag was a bust due to complaints that the bag was <i>too noisy</i>, the company found itself on the receiving end of some well-deserved, internet-fueled snark. One of the snarkiest came from Change.org's Sustainable Food Editor Sarah Parsons, who <a href="http://food.change.org/blog/view/sunchips_ditches_compostable_bags_because_theyre_too_noisy">writes</a>:<br /><blockquote>The switcheroo came after Americans complained about the bags' noise level—the little sacks apparently cause quite the ruckus as folks stick their paws in and out to grab fistfuls of chips. In the past year alone, SunChips sales decreased by more than 11 percent, mostly due to the boisterous bags. A Facebook group called <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/SORRY-BUT-I-CANT-HEAR-YOU-OVER-THIS-SUN-CHIPS-BAG/116706515038289?v=stream&amp;ref=ts" target="_blank">"Sorry But I Can't Hear You Over This SunChips Bag"</a> boasts more than 44,500 fans. Apparently a SunChips bag that drowns out the sound of one's own chip-crunching was very disconcerting for a populace that's come to expect a more subtle rustling from its potato chip sacks.</blockquote><a name='more'></a>Next, Change.org started a petition to ask Frito-Lay to reconsider its decision; after all, the planet will ultimately suffer more than consumers' ear drums. No worries, Frito-Lay (a division of PepsiCo that makes <a href="http://fritolay.com/">truckloads</a> of salty snacks) is on the job. Here, reprinted in its entirely, is the email response I received from Director Consumer Relations Cathy Dial after I signed the Change.org petition:<br /><blockquote>Hi Michele, <br /><br />Thanks for your email about the SunChips compostable package. Marc forwarded your email to me for follow up with you. Frito-Lay is taking steps to improve the SunChips 100% compostable packaging launched in early 2010. The new steps help address consumers' feedback about the bag's noise level, while continuing to build on the environmental benefits.<br /><br />While Frito-Lay works to develop a next-generation compostable package, SunChips Original snacks will remain in the current 100% compostable package, while the other SunChips flavors have transitioned back to their traditional packaging. Once the improved compostable bag is ready, it will be featured in the SunChips Original flavor. <br /><br />As with many leading-edge technologies, there is an ongoing process of improvement and refinement. We are confident the approach we are taking will allow us to continue our sustainability progress, while also showing our consumers that we are committed to responding to their needs and preferences.<br /><br />Frito-Lay has a long track record of progress and leadership in environmental responsibility, and the compostable bag is an important step in our sustainable packaging journey. Thank you again for your feedback.</blockquote>I had no idea it was even possible to be on a "sustainable packaging journey," but it sure sounds precarious. Well, I had a few more questions for Cathy, so I asked her to clarify, and here are those questions, with her answers below each, in italics:<br /><blockquote>Thanks, Cathy,<br /><br />I am a little confused. Perhaps you can clarify:<br /><br />1) Why keep just one flavor in the noisy bag if it's such a problem? <br /><br /><i>We are keeping the current 100% compostable packaging on one SunChips SKU because we are still very much committed to developing sustainable packaging, but are trying to address feedback from consumers at the same time. By keeping a SKU active with the compostable packaging, it also provides a path to quickly bring the next-generation bag to market, which we are aggressively developing. </i><br /><br />2) Are you saying the new bag will be only for the Original flavor? Why wouldn't all of the flavors be offered in the new bag?&nbsp; <br /><br /><i>When the next-generation bag is ready, we will initially make it available with Original flavor SunChips. We will then continue our evaluation process, collect feedback from consumers and other stakeholders and determine an appropriate strategy to potentially extend it. </i><br /><br />3) Why just SunChips? Why isn't the company interested in protecting the environment for all of its products?<br /><br /><i>Frito-Lay’s R&amp;D team is working on a wide range of potential sustainable packaging options beyond just the SunChips compostable bag, and we are looking at how other brands in our portfolio could bring them to life. SunChips was our starting point for bringing sustainable packaging to market and we are hoping to build on that with other product lines.</i></blockquote>OK, I guess we will just have to follow Frito-Lay along its sustainable packaging journey. Let's hope it's a quiet path.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-31975595456773347582010-09-19T21:02:00.000-07:002010-09-20T09:29:55.681-07:00Why are healthy food advocates stumping for Pepsi?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TJbYVa0596I/AAAAAAAAAJg/-KX0cC5Cb9A/s1600/button_pepsi.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TJbYVa0596I/AAAAAAAAAJg/-KX0cC5Cb9A/s1600/button_pepsi.gif" /></a></div><br />As I <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/08/back-to-school-with-pepsico-stealth.html">wrote</a> last month, it can get pretty annoying when your friends harass you to vote for their favorite cause to "win" a grant from the now-ubiquitous Pepsi Refresh Project.<br /><br />But lately I've been especially disappointed to see so many worthy food causes jumping on this marketing-disguised-as-philanthropy bandwagon. Let's not forget that PepsiCo owns not only&nbsp; Pepsi-Cola and other unhealthy beverage lines such as Gatorade, but is also the king of salty snacks. The company's Frito-Lay division owns Doritos, Cheetos, Tostitos, you get the idea.<br /><br />And yet without a hint of irony, in this promotional <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Pepsi#p/search/7/gPPwYTlP_Uo">video</a> to get people to submit project ideas to the contest, the Pepsi Refresh Project "Food and Shelter Ambassador" Allison Arieff waxes sentimental about gardening, surrounded by nothing but greenery, not a soda or chip in sight.<br /><br />Here are just a few projects that have so far been crowned winners of Pepsi Refresh grants: First, there is the <a href="http://www.refresheverything.com/bikeloc">Bikeloc</a> project. Pepsi introduces the celebratory <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUVSnKFUkcg">video</a> this way:<br /><blockquote>Robert DuBois and Aaron Zueck are "potlucking across America" in one hundred days, and they're doing it on bicycles. A $5,000 Pepsi Refresh grant put them in the saddle and allowed them to collect multimedia stories of the local food movement from coast to coast. </blockquote>Just $5,000, was there really no other way of raising that money? Another <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7F9Pi_-kE0">project</a> also won $5,000, this time for a school garden at an elementary school. Here's how Pepsi describes it:<br /><blockquote>Jeanne Acutanza had the idea to build a sustainable garden at her kids' school, where students and locals could plant crops together and donate the harvest to local food banks. She submitted her idea, you voted, and it won a $5,000 Pepsi Refresh Grant. </blockquote>And in another heartwarming kid project, a farmers market manager in Illinois featured <a href="http://www.refresheverything.com/tastebuds">here</a> describes how he won $25,000 to help teach schoolchildren about eating fresh fruits and vegetables, a worthy cause for sure. But what about the mixed messages kids receive from all the promotion with Pepsi logos associated with these two projects?<br /><br />Now, it's no wonder that in these hard economic times, so many groups would be desperate enough to turn to the nation's largest purveyor of processed food to try and promote the healthy kind. But what these organizations don't realize is that are really doing more to promote the Pepsi brand then they are to advance their own cause. Indeed, they are undermining the very ideals they espouse.<br /><br />Moreover, these grants give credibility to the notion that we can (and should) rely on Big Food to fix our broken food system. But nothing could be further from the truth. PepsiCo is happy to spend relatively small amounts of money in exchange for getting to hitch its PR wagon to the likes of farmers markets and school gardens.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the sale of junk food and soda continues unabated.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-42447282582661231372010-09-14T22:32:00.000-07:002010-09-15T00:03:50.027-07:00While we battle over ingredients like HFCS, Big Food is winning the processed food warIf there was Twitter for food only, today's trending topic would have been the Big News that the <a href="http://www.corn.org/">Corn Refiners Association</a> (yes, there are lobbyists for people who refine corn) is asking the Food and Drug Administration to rename high-fructose corn syrup (aka HFCS) "corn sugar." This, the latest in the corn industry's attempts to restore the tarnished reputation of its omnipresent by-product. Tara Parker-Pope, health blogger for the <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/a-new-name-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/">New York Times</a>, quotes Audrae Erickson, president of CRA, who explains: <br /><blockquote>Clearly the name is confusing consumers. Research shows that ‘corn sugar’ better communicates the amount of calories, the level of fructose and the sweetness in this ingredient.</blockquote>Clearly the name is confusing? That must explain the PR campaign the corn refiners embarked on not long ago (cutely dubbed "<a href="http://sweetsurprise.com/">sweet surprise</a>") to un-confuse consumers. But now, focus group results in hand, industry is doing what they do even better than PR: lobby the federal government to get its way.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>But as <i>Food Politics</i> author Marion Nestle succinctly <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/09/corn-refiners-ask-fda-to-replace-hfcs-with-corn-sugar/">points out</a>, "HFCS is the new trans fat." In other words, the public, driven by an ingredient-obsessed approach to healthy eating has latched on to HFCS as the black sheep <i>de jure</i>. I don't even want to get into the debate over whether or not HFCS has caused the obesity epidemic (Professor Nestle says no and I believe her). To me, that has always been besides the point.<br /><br />The reason that HFCS became so ubiquitous in the food supply, the reason it replaced sugar decades ago, is that it was cheaper, thanks to federal corn subsidies. This in turn helped drive super-sizing, especially of soda, as other authors have eloquently written about. But unfortunately, this message got lost in the shuffle as most of the media's emphasis has been on the nutritional aspects of HFCS. <br /><br />So now, the public has decided that HFCS is simply the <i>wrong</i> sweetener. As a result of this demonizing, we are now in the ridiculous situation where food companies are falling over each other to remove HFCS from their products, slap on a natural label, and get brownie points for helping Americans eat better. Exhibit A, <a href="http://www.pepsinaturalnews.com/">Pepsi Natural</a>:<br /><blockquote>Pepsi Natural is made with all-natural ingredients, including lightly sparkling water, natural sugar, natural caramel and kola nut extract. </blockquote>Only Big Food would find a way to make a product full of refined white sugar (which at one time was also <a href="http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all.html">demonized</a>) seem like a healthy alternative. It's like I always say, the food industry is very good at taking criticism and turning it into a marketing opportunity.<br /><br />PepsiCo, which also owns Frito-Lay, is especially adept at this strategy. The company honed its magical ingredient swapping skills a few years back when trans fat was still the poster child for bad eating. That's when we got "trans-fat free" Cheetos, among other new and improved junk foods brought to you by Frito-Lay. This product line "improvement" was such big news in 2002 that PepsiCo put out an entire press release to chest-thump about it:<span style="font-size: small;"> <a href="http://www.fritolay.com/about-us/press-release-20020924.html">Frito-Lay Eliminates Trans Fats from America's Favorite Salty Snacks: Doritos, Tostitos, and Cheetos</a>. Problem solved. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">The trouble with how Americans eat is not because of high-fructose corn syrup any more than it was trans fat, or any other single ingredient in the food supply. I realize some may contribute more than others to specific health problems, but the real issue is how Americans are eating too much highly-processed food, period. The ingredients are far less important than the bigger picture.&nbsp;</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">We need to stop obsessing over details like food labels, salt content, carbs, and grams of this fat vs. that fat. Instead, we need to talk about (and get the media to focus on) the importance of eating a whole foods (mostly plant-based) diet. One message scares Big Food more than any other: that people should be eating whole food that comes from nature and not from a factory. Industry really has no solution to offer, because their business model is based on processing nature, packaging it, and marking it up for high profits.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">But Big Food can easily handle ingredient-bashing, because companies can always find replacements. Don't like this fat any longer? We've got another at the ready. That new sugar is now on the nutrition hit-list? No problem, we'll revert to old sugar. These are all just temporary glitches in Big Food's factory production schedule. Eventually, it's back to business as usual.&nbsp;</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Right now, R &amp; D departments are hard at work in Purchase, New York (PepsiCo HQ), Atlanta (Coca-Cola), and elsewhere testing the next no-calorie sweetener, or natural flavor enhancer, or some other chemical concoction to trick people into buying their new and improved, better-for-you beverages and junk foods.</span><span style="font-size: small;"> And with each innovation, they get to look like the good guys. How ironic is that?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">As long as we keep singling out ingredients to demonize, this cycle will continue. So can we please stop obsessing over HFCS and focus on the real problem: A cheap, endless supply of highly-processed foods. And when we do focus on raw ingredients, the discussion should be about how federal subsidies keep the wrong foods cheap and the right foods expensive. In other words, we should be having an economic discussion about ingredients, not one based on nutrition.&nbsp;</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">What do you think?</span>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-76721235744912161352010-09-11T17:28:00.000-07:002010-09-11T17:43:01.338-07:00Tweet Responsibly: Tips for being an effective food activist (or any other kind) on TwitterFirst of all, I am no Twitter expert. But after about 6 months I've noticed a few things that drive me nuts. Because 140 characters is insufficient to explain, I'm airing my concerns in this longer format. I've been writing about the food industry, food policy, and the politics of food for about 14 years now, and as a lawyer, I take pride in being accurate about policy, as well as industry practices. While I am used to writing in long format, I also appreciate the fun of saying things quickly and succinctly.<br /><br />What I love most about Twitter is sharing with, and learning from, my fellow food activists, writers, experts, parents, and just anyone who cares about the politics of what's on our plate. I love the up-to-the-minute news, blog posts, action alerts, and even the waxing sentimental about whatever local food is in season.<br /><br />But what I don't like is the sloppiness that typing up to 140 characters at lightning speed can sometimes foster. Lately I have felt the urge to correct a few things being posted to Twitter. Now I realize it may be annoying when I hit reply and wag my finger, but I think accuracy is important. So if it can't be said correctly in 140 characters, than either be very vague, just give the url, or leave it alone. And here are few more rules for how to be an effective activist on Twitter:<br /><br /><a name='more'></a><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Do make sure the source material in the link actually backs up the content of the tweet.</b></span><br />There is really no excuse for not checking your links, one to be sure it goes to the right place, and two, if you are re-tweeting someone else, to ensure the other person got it right. Which leads me to....<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Do not point to a story or blog post, etc, if you have not read the story, etc, yourself.</span> </b><br />Now I realize some stories are long and we are all in a hurry to get to the next tweet, but if you are telling me to read something then I expect that you have at least verified that it's worth the read. Yes, a quick skim is OK, I do that myself at times, just enough to vouch for it.<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Do not perpetuate lazy newspaper headlines that may be incomplete or inaccurate. </span></b><br />This is especially important when referencing newspapers. (My poster child is USA Today.) In my book (warning, shameless promotion) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Appetite-Profit-industry-undermines-health/dp/1560259329">Appetite for Profit</a>, I described the importance of not taking as gospel any newspaper headline about food industry practices or food policy. Now in the age of 140 characters or less, people are tweeting newspaper headlines without knowing if they are accurate. Most newspaper headline writers do not understand the nitty gritty of policy details, but that is no excuse to help dumb headlines go viral. A typical example (paraphrasing): "PepsiCo no longer selling soda in schools," when in fact, the company just has voluntary nutrition standards. If you see a headline like that, which sounds too good to be true, it probably is, so don't tweet it. You only help Big Food's PR machine.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Just like in the real world, consider your source. Also, trust but verify.</b></span><br />I follow many food industry accounts on Twitter, so I can see how they market in that medium and call them out at times. But if an industry source tweets a news story, my BS radar goes up and I read especially carefully to see if what they are pointing to supports their claims. It usually doesn't. On the flip side, there are lots of great activists on Twitter, and some I trust more than others, but just because someone has lots of followers or covers the White House, that doesn't mean you should take their word as gospel.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Do not tweet sweeping statements when details are needed to explain nuanced law and policy</b>.</span><br />This one I can best explain by example and as a lawyer, has me most frustrated. Pending in Congress right now is the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act, which is the legislation that funds critical programs such as school meals. Since the Senate <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/08/landmark-child-nutrition-bill-clears-senate/">passed</a> its version of the bill last month, I've seen numerous inaccurate headlines and tweets exaggerating what the bill would accomplish if enacted. They are all along the lines of, "new bill would rid schools of junk food."<br /><br />This is far from the case. Instead, the measure at long last gives USDA the much-needed <i>authority </i>to regulate foods sold outside of school meals, so-called "competitive foods." And while the <a href="http://ag.senate.gov/site/legislation.html">language</a> of the bill does suggest that subsequent regulations should adhere to sound nutrition standards, the regulatory process is inevitably fraught with its own politics. In other words, the fight to get unhealthy foods and beverages out of schools is far from over. That the food industry did not put up much of a fight over this aspect of the bill is a pretty good indicator that they don't feel threatened by its language. <br /><br /><i>So please, I am begging you, do not tweet that this bill gets junk food out of schools, especially once the bill finally does get signed by President Obama, because the celebrating is premature at best. </i><br /><br />Now I realize that we can't all be lawyers (please no jokes) and I don't expect everyone on Twitter to spend hours pouring over boring legislative language (I hate it too) but my point is, if you're not sure of what you're saying, please don't say it, or ask an expert to clarify. As an advocate, I know how important credibility is. It's often all we have, given the enormous power of industry. While Big Food may have endless resources, we have the truth on our side. So we shouldn't mess with it.<br /><br />If you have questions, <a href="mailto:michele@informedeating.org">email</a> me or, you can always find me on <a href="http://twitter.com/Appetite4Profit">Twitter</a>.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-25946828350472187382010-09-05T11:58:00.000-07:002010-09-10T05:53:53.312-07:00Why is McDonald's listed a resource for Childhood Obesity Awareness Month?<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TIPlzotRFaI/AAAAAAAAAJY/tNz8EXf4M68/s1600/Ronald.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TIPlzotRFaI/AAAAAAAAAJY/tNz8EXf4M68/s200/Ronald.jpg" width="142" /></a><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TIPhzYE5T8I/AAAAAAAAAIo/PSLqYUG4kXc/s1600/obesitymonth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TIPhzYE5T8I/AAAAAAAAAIo/PSLqYUG4kXc/s320/obesitymonth.jpg" /></a>I am not a fan of any sort of "awareness" month as I find the concept trivializes important health issues. Are we only supposed to care about heart disease, diabetes, etc, during that one month of the year? And I rarely see anything of substance come from the month-long activities, just the usual ineffective educational campaigns, instead of meaningful public policy reforms. Plus many issues tend to crowd themselves into certain months, so it all becomes background noise. September is one such month. Among other causes (e.g., "<a href="http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/cholmonth/">cholesterol education</a>"), September has been proclaimed "Childhood Obesity Awareness Month" by Congress and President Obama.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>When I first heard about about it, I though, oh god, please no ribbons or walks. Thankfully, no signs of either, yet. But there are still plenty of early indicators that the idea is doomed to failure. For one, the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/01/presidential-proclamation-national-childhood-obesity-awareness-month">Presidential Proclamation</a> itself is pretty milk-toast when it comes to policy change. For example, referring to the report of the President's Task Force on Childhood Obesity: <br /><blockquote>The report outlines broad strategies to address childhood obesity, including providing healthier food in schools, ensuring access to healthy affordable food, increasing opportunities for physical activity, empowering parents and caregivers with better information about making healthy choices, and giving children a healthy start in life. I invite all Americans to visit LetsMove.gov to learn more about these recommendations and find additional information and resources on how to help children eat healthy and stay active.</blockquote>All of those ideas have been on the table for years, but little progress has been made. And he's inviting Americans to find resources to help kids eat better? Not exactly cutting-edge. Finally, nothing even mentioning the role the food industry plays in undermining parents, no matter how much the First Lady tries to "empower" them with her Let's Move campaign.<br /><br />Then I looked a little further to find the official <a href="http://www.healthierkidsbrighterfutures.org/">website</a> for Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, which seems innocuous enough at first. The American College of Sports Medicine is listed as the main contact, which tells me the emphasis is more on physical activity than on healthy food, or god forbid, food marketing. Other <a href="http://www.healthierkidsbrighterfutures.org/partners/">partners</a> listed include the NAACP, Richard Simmons' Ask America, American Society for Nutrition, and various other private health companies and associations, an odd lot to say the least.<br /><br />But what caught my eye was the list of "<a href="http://www.healthierkidsbrighterfutures.org/resources/">external resources</a>," which includes some usual suspects such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Let's Move, along with several other government agencies. Then inexplicably, at the very bottom, is a link to "<a href="http://www.fun.mcdonalds.com/stagem/">McDonald's Stage M</a>," which appears to be a video game site intended for young children to "learn" about nutrition. As described on the fast food giant's main <a href="http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/parents/stage_m.html">website</a>:<br /><blockquote>McDonald's is proud to introduce Stage M - an exciting and entertaining place for kids, where they can watch music videos all about the fun and great taste of fruits and vegetables. The whole family will want to sing along! Kids can even put themselves in a music video!</blockquote>So many exclamation points, it must be fun!<br /><br />What a coup for the company most closely associated with <i>contributing</i> to childhood obesity to get listed as a <i>resource</i>, right after the US Department of Agriculture, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. This same list can also be found on the <a href="http://fudge.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=174">website</a> for Congresswoman Marcia L. Fudge of Ohio, who sponsored the resolution that established the event. Kudos to her for taking leadership on this issue, but perhaps her staff is unaware that she is giving McDonald's some great PR? (I tried emailing the American College of Sports Medicine to find out how much money McDonald's paid for the privilege, but have not yet heard back.)<br /><br />Other industry players are also jumping on the "awareness" bandwagon. For example, the American Beverage Association, the powerful trade association for Coke and Pepsi et al, blogged about it last week under the silly headline, <a href="http://www.ameribev.org/blog/2010/09/childhood-obesity-awareness-what-a-difference-a-month-can-make/">Childhood Obesity Awareness: What a Difference a Month Can Make!</a> Without a hint of irony, ABA tell us to: <br /><blockquote>Get informed. Get connected. Get involved. That’s the message on the <a href="http://http//www.healthierkidsbrighterfutures.org/home/">“Healthier Kids, Brighter Futures”</a> website. There, families and individuals can learn how taking even small steps can make a big difference in their lives. National, state and local leaders, as well as businesses and organizations, are encouraged to observe the month. </blockquote>National, state, and local leaders are encouraged to <i>observe </i>the month, like it's a religious event? Because they cannot possibly be encouraged to actually <i>do anything </i>about the problem, since then Big Soda will just pour even more lobbying dollars into obstructing public policy for real change.<br /><br />So brace yourselves for the rest of September, as your local school or neighborhood group just might take up the mantle to "observe" Childhood Obesity Awareness Month. And then, on October 1, everyone can go back to whatever they were doing before, having observed and been made aware. Problem solved.<br /><br />9/10/10 Update: See also Melanie Warner's scathing piece on this topic, <a href="http://www.bnet.com/blog/food-industry/childhood-obesity-the-food-industry-8217s-newest-marketing-ploy/1514?tag=content;drawer-container">Childhood Obesity: The Food Industry's Latest Marketing Ploy</a>.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-6033670020980019202010-08-31T21:34:00.000-07:002010-08-31T22:19:41.507-07:00Back to school with PepsiCo stealth marketing?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TH3PhcUmaVI/AAAAAAAAAII/kqQhrYhgqTs/s1600/pepsirefresh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="113" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TH3PhcUmaVI/AAAAAAAAAII/kqQhrYhgqTs/s200/pepsirefresh.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TH3QXLNFduI/AAAAAAAAAIY/-4-I-t-PW9w/s1600/backtoschool.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="174" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TH3QXLNFduI/AAAAAAAAAIY/-4-I-t-PW9w/s200/backtoschool.jpg" width="200" /></a> I recently <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/08/will-schools-follow-new-pepsico.html">blogged</a> about questions regarding how PepsiCo's voluntary beverage guidelines, announced in March, would be implemented in schools given that contracts are made at the local level. Now with back- to-school in full swing, I have even more questions about how PepsiCo may be using stealth marketing techniques to gain access to that coveted captive K-12 audience.<br /><br />Today, the company <a href="http://www.pepsico.com/PressRelease/Frito-Lay-Asks-Texas-High-School-Sports-Fans-to-Help-Score-for-Your-School08312010.html">announced</a> a new program it calls <a href="http://www.scoreforyourschool.com/">Score for Your School</a>. From the press release:<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><blockquote>PepsiCo's Frito-Lay North America business unit kicks-off high school football season with the "Score for Your School" program for Texans only that invites fans to help schools win up to a $10,000 donation for their sports programs. Beginning today, Texas fans can visit <a href="http://www.scoreforyourschool.com/" target="_blank">www.scoreforyourschool.com</a>, enter the 9-digit product code from ANY Frito-Lay product (chips, dips, salsa and more) and then select the Texas high school of their choice.&nbsp;</blockquote>So in order to even <i>vote</i> for your school, you have to purchase a product. How nice of Frito-Lay to "invite" fans to buy Fritos, Doritos, Tostitos, Cheetos, Lays, etc. But it's "ANY" product, so generous! Why just Texas schools? The company's marketing guy explains: "Frito-Lay snacks and high school football are a Texas tradition," said Michael Del Pozzo, director, marketing, Frito-Lay North America.<br /><br />Frito-Lay snacks are a Texas tradition? I will let the words of someone who replied to me on Twitter today speak to that: <span class="status-body"><span class="status-content"><span class="entry-content">"Being that TX has a high obesity rate, this sure crushes any efforts being made 2 teach kids about eating healthy!!!" In other words, that's one tradition Texas can do without. Frito-Lay's Del Pozzo continues:</span></span></span><br /><blockquote>As high school sports programs face many challenges, we thought this promotion would be an easy and fun way for fans to help. Now, each single purchase can add up for a chance to win up to $10,000 for their school when they go online and 'Score for their School'. </blockquote>How thoughtful of Frito-Lay to create a fun and easy way for fans to help sports programs. Couldn't have anything to do with how many more chips would get sold would it? Because if the company really cared, how about just sending a check to each Texas high school football team instead? This program, which runs through December 31, is capped at $90,000 in donations, a drop in the bucket for the nation's largest salty snack purveyor. <br /><br />But this marketing-disguised-as-philanthropy is by now old territory for PepsiCo. For the past year, the company has been gaining much positive PR with its ubiquitous Pepsi Refresh donation program. If you're like me, you've been annoyed by friends and colleagues begging you to vote for their nonprofit or other worthy cause, like a high school popularity contest. <br /><br />Last week, a parochial elementary school in Alton, Illinois held a "thank you assembly" for Pepsi employees after the school won a Refresh Everything grant of $25,000 to purchase computers. The <a href="http://www.thetelegraph.com/news/pepsi-43982-new-alton.html">article</a> describing the event is worth checking out for the image of little 6-year old Matthew Dixon holding a "thank-you Pepsi" sign; <i>yes 6</i>. The reporter explains how the youngsters showed Pepsi employees their gratitude: <br /><blockquote>The entire school signed a large, thank-you poster, and the younger students made individual thank-you drawings in red, white and blue, <b>the soda brand's colors</b>. [my emphasis] Teachers wore turquoise shirts that read, "Every Pepsi Refreshes the World," and the children pinned on Pepsi buttons....<br /><br />The highlight of the 15-minute assembly in the gymnasium came when Father Delix Michel riled up the youngsters with a T-shirt toss. Similar to professional baseball games - but minus the slingshot - Michel showed a good pitching arm as he deftly threw Pepsi shirts to all areas where students were sitting, including landing one shirt in the back row. Some of the shirts landed in the students' laps. </blockquote>A priest handing out Pepsi T-shirts, it doesn't get any better than that for positive PR. Now it's great that PepsiCo wants to give back to the community, but there is only one word for this and it's not philanthropy, it's branding. It's sad that schools feel they must participate and don't see through it. <br /><br />The Pepsi Refresh website has an entire <a href="http://www.refresheverything.com/categories/education">section</a> devoted to education. Please let me know if your school is involved in either of these stealth marketing campaigns. Pepsi does not belong in schools, whether it's soda vending machines or voting contests.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-26156195956925528102010-08-28T18:01:00.001-07:002010-08-28T18:10:37.521-07:00Must-read aricles on egg recall that I did not write<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/THmwUOK2i-I/AAAAAAAAAH4/hTtjNgflhjM/s1600/egg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/THmwUOK2i-I/AAAAAAAAAH4/hTtjNgflhjM/s320/egg.jpg" /></a></div><br />In case you missed it, either because you don't watch the news, don't eat eggs, or like me, both, about 1,500 people have so far been sickened by an outbreak of Salmonella in eggs. A massive recall of half a billion eggs from two Iowa factory farms ensued. I was planning to write my own blog post on this when I realized that others have already done such a good job saying what needed to be said. So instead, I am offering up my list of favorite articles by people I already knew or have just come to admire.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>As you might expect, the authors I chose don't include any tips on how to cook your eggs properly to avoid getting sick. (Beware, the "<a href="http://www.eggsafety.org/">Egg Safety Center</a>" is a front website put up by Big Egg.) Rather, I chose those experts who get to the heart of the matter and the bigger picture: Our concentrated food system driven by insatiable profit, combined with a broken regulatory system held hostage by powerful economic interests. If there's any good that can come from tragedies like this, it's how the dark side of our food supply gets exposed to the light of day. These stories are worth the read, whether you're worried about egg safety, only buy eggs from your local farmer, or don't eat eggs at all, because we must change the system for everyone. <br /><br /><i>For the overall story and analysis of entrenched politics:</i><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Hellena Bottemiller, </span><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/08/egg-gaps-illustrate-fractured-food-safety-system/">Egg Gaps Illustrate Fractured Food Safety System</a>, Food Safety News, 8/25/10</span><br /><br />Jill Richardson, <span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/147956/out_of_control_egg_producer_flouts_regulations%3A_consumers_deal_with_500_million_salmonella-tainted_eggs/">Out of Control Egg Producer Flouts Regulations: Consumers Deal with 500 Million Salmonella-Tainted Eggs</a>, AlterNet, 8/25/10&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-size: small;">&nbsp;</span> <br /><i><span style="font-size: small;">Two by Tom Philpott on Grist, my new favorite </span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;">Big Ag </span></i><i><span style="font-size: small;">politics writer</span></i><span style="font-size: small;">:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.grist.org/article/food-a-habitual-offender-unleashes-nearly-half-a-billion-salmonella-t/">A ‘habitual offender’ unleashes nearly half a billion salmonella-tainted eggs</a>, 8/19/10 &nbsp;</span><br /><h1 class="headline" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/">Iowa ag secretary boasted of state’s vast egg industry, failed to regulate it</a>, 8/27/10</span></h1><h1 style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>On how cramming hens into cages is both cruel to animals and bad for public health:</i></span></h1><h1 style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">John Robbins, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/are-your-eggs-safe-to-eat_b_696660.html">How Egg Industry Greed Caused the Salmonella Outbreak</a>, Huffington Post, 8/27/10</span></h1><h1 style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Carolyn Lochhead, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/08/27/MNHL1F3QPN.DTL">Egg recall heats up debate over caging chicken</a>, San Francisco Chronicle, 8/27/10</span></h1><h1 style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>On how decades of deregulation caused this disaster and how to fix the system</i>:</span></h1><h1 style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Jonathan Cohn, <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/77209/tainted-eggs-blame-reagan-and-w-bush">Reagan, Bush, and Rotten Eggs</a>, The New Republic, 8/25/10</span></h1><h1 style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">David Kirby, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/egg-recall_b_687882.html">Lessons from the Egg Recall: Cheap Food Makes You Sick</a>, Huffington Post, 8/19/10</span></h1><h1 class="storyheadline" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Mina Kimes, <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/24/news/economy/egg_recall_regulation_USDA_FDA.fortune/">Egg recall is a golden opportunity to whip food safety into shape</a>, CNNMoney.com, 8/25/10</span></h1><span style="font-size: small;">Bill Marler, <a href="http://www.marlerblog.com/lawyer-oped/what-if-i-had-a-food-safety-magic-wand/">What if I had a food safety magic wand?</a>, Marler Blog, 8/27/10</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;"><i>On the inevitable PR campaign by Big Egg:</i></span><br /><h1 style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Rupal Perekh and Maureen Morrison: <a href="http://adage.com/article?article_id=145558">As Egg Fears Mount, Farmers Launch Reassurance Campaign</a>, Ad Age,&nbsp; 8/25/10</span></h1><i>And finally, it seems fitting to end with this hilarious take on the egg industry's PR campaign by the expert who literally wrote the book on food safety politics; b</i><i>y now, we all need the comic relief:</i><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Marion Nestle, <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/08/egg-industry-response-to-recalls-in-translation/">Egg industry response to recalls (in translation)</a>, Food Politics blog, 8/26/10</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">If I missed any good articles, please let me know.&nbsp;</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Also, see the video in my previous <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/egg-recall_b_687882.html">post</a> of my interview on MSNBC. </span><br /><h1 style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></h1>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-14943950902342656762010-08-20T21:18:00.000-07:002010-08-20T21:22:33.169-07:00Video of my MSNBC interview on egg recallToday I was interviewed on the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/">Dylan Ratigan Show</a> about the massive egg recall this week, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tainted_eggs">now</a> at more than half a billion eggs, with at least 1,000 people made ill and counting. The host understood that the root cause of the problem is our industrialized, factory farm food system. The segment starts about a minute into the video clip. <br /><br /><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0" height="245" id="msnbc6349a8" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=38790939&amp;width=420&amp;height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="opaque" /><embed name="msnbc6349a8" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=38790939&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="opaque" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><br /><div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; color: #999999; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px; margin-top: 5px; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none ! important;">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none ! important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(153, 153, 153) ! important; color: rgb(87, 153, 219) ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; height: 13px; text-decoration: none ! important;">news about the economy</a></div>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-49598686083047353852010-08-15T19:24:00.000-07:002010-08-31T21:48:34.631-07:00Will schools follow new PepsiCo beverage guidelines even if students want Mountain Dew?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TGjFuXJZHBI/AAAAAAAAAHw/q-baKjiMFV8/s1600/pepsi_vending_machine_photo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TGjFuXJZHBI/AAAAAAAAAHw/q-baKjiMFV8/s320/pepsi_vending_machine_photo.jpg" /></a></div>This past March, soft drink giant PepsiCo <a href="http://www.pepsico.com/PressRelease/PepsiCo-Sets-Industry-Standard-By-Establishing-the-First-Consistent-Global-Appro03162010.html">announced</a> with much fanfare a new global school policy. The specific <a href="http://www.pepsico.com/Download/PepsiCo_Global_Policy_On_The_Sale_Of_Beverages_To_Schools.pdf">guidelines</a>, to take effect by 2012, limit the types of beverages that are to be sold in schools. According to the <a href="http://www.pepsico.com/PressRelease/PepsiCo-Sets-Industry-Standard-By-Establishing-the-First-Consistent-Global-Appro03162010.html">press release</a>, the policy will "stop sales of full-sugar soft drinks to primary and secondary schools."<br /><br />That's why the <a href="http://www.pal-item.com/article/20100813/NEWS01/8130313/1008/rss">announcement</a> last week that Union County High School in Indiana was signing on to a brand new five-year contract with Pepsi (thereby ending its exclusive contract with Coca-Cola) came as a surprise. Not the contract itself, but what one school official had to say about it. From the news <a href="http://www.pal-item.com/article/20100813/NEWS01/8130313/1008/rss">article</a>: <br /><blockquote>The new contract is expected to earn the high school and middle school and booster groups $20,000 more over five years, Union County Middle School Assistant Principal Mark Detweiler said. Prices for soft drinks will remain $1.25, but school officials <a class="iAs" classname="iAs" href="http://www.pal-item.com/article/20100813/NEWS01/8130313/1008/rss#" itxtdid="22898092" style="background-color: transparent ! important; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0.2em dotted rgb(43, 101, 176) ! important; color: rgb(43, 101, 176) ! important; font-size: 100% ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; padding-bottom: 0px ! important; padding-left: 0pt; padding-right: 0pt; padding-top: 0pt; text-decoration: none ! important;" target="_blank"><nobr id="itxt_nobr_4_0" style="color: #2b65b0; font-family: Arial,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 100%; font-weight: normal;"></nobr></a>expect sales to increase with Pepsi products. "Students drink Mountain Dew," Detweiler said.</blockquote>They sure do, only problem is, PepsiCo says those products aren't for sale. Or are they?<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>I asked Derek Yach, director of Global Health Policy at PepsiCo for an explanation and he told me that the vending machines have not been put into place. He also said:<br /><blockquote>Our intent from the outset has been that the contract be 100 percent compliant with the American Beverage Association / Alliance for a Health Generation guidelines and other relevant PepsiCo policies. Our local teams in Indiana are well aware of this and will work closely with local school officials to ensure compliance.</blockquote>Yach was referring to yet another voluntary policy <a href="http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3039339">announced</a> by the soft drink industry back in 2006.<br /><br />Someone should have probably clued in the school officials in Indiana at the time they signed the new contract. Were they even made aware of the PepsiCo policy not to sell the worst products, even if they are the most popular?<br /><br />This raises many questions about how PepsiCo's school policy will play out in each school district. Indeed, the language of the policy is pretty vague on implementation and enforcement: <br /><blockquote>PepsiCo will encourage our bottlers, vending companies and third-party distributors to work closely with parents, community leaders and school officials to ensure that only products that meet the following guidelines are offered... </blockquote>"Encourage?" "Work closely?" And while it's nice to mention them, what do parents and community leaders have to do with school contracts? <br /><br />Here's what New York University Professor Marion Nestle, author of <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/">Food Politics</a> has to say about the Indiana contract:<br /><blockquote>In my experience, you have to see for yourself, which is why I love visiting schools when I get the chance. With school officials in tow, you can watch kids using the vending machines during the lunch hour with nobody saying a word. The incentive here is to sell MORE product, not less, and that’s the problem.</blockquote>Right. And here we have the odd situation where the vendors will essentially be telling its customers: Sorry, but we can't sell you Pepsi and Mountain Dew, those products that the kids love best and that will bring you all that extra cash you need to run your programs.<br /><br />Let's see how well that works.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-21300713329195109882010-08-08T13:32:00.000-07:002010-08-31T21:49:30.530-07:00Court not buying Coke's defense of its deceptive marketing of vitaminwater as lawsuit proceeds<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TF8PXFZPhBI/AAAAAAAAAHc/w2NHO8vzSV8/s1600/vitaminwater.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TF8PXFZPhBI/AAAAAAAAAHc/w2NHO8vzSV8/s320/vitaminwater.jpeg" /></a></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: inherit;">My friends at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) recently scored an important court victory in its lawsuit against Coca-Cola for deceptive marketing of its product vitaminwater. (In case you missed it, the soft drink giant <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/business/26drink-web.html">purchased</a> Glaceau, maker of vitaminwater, back in 2007 for a cool $4.2 billion in cash.)</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: inherit;">The class action, <a href="http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/vitaminwater_filed_complaint.pdf">filed</a> in January 2009 in federal court in New York, alleges that Coca-Cola's claims about vitaminwater's heath benefits are false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair. As CSPI's press <a href="http://www.cspinet.org/new/200901151.html">release</a> explained: </div><blockquote style="font-family: inherit;">Vitaminwater's website, marketing copy, and labels claim that vitaminwater is healthy, claiming, for example, that "balance cran-grapefruit" has "bioactive components" that promote "healthy, pain-free functioning of joints, structural integrity of joints and bones" and that the nutrients in “power-c dragonfruit" "enable the body to exert physical power by contributing to the structural integrity of the musculoskeletal system." </blockquote><div style="font-family: inherit;"></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"></div><div style="font-family: inherit;">If those claims sound like they belong on a pharmaceutical product, you're right. As CSPI notes, they go way beyond anything the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows "and cross the line into outright fraud." Then there's the sugar. According to CSPI, "the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of vitaminwater do more to promote obesity, diabetes, and other health problems than the vitamins in the drinks do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the bottles."<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>An important hurdle in a lawsuit like this is surviving what's called a motion to dismiss. That's what Coca-Cola's lawyers filed to ask the judge to throw out the case before it can even get to trial. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson <a href="http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/order_on_m-dismiss_doc_44.pdf">denied</a> Coke's motion on almost all grounds, a huge victory for the plaintiffs.</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />In even more good news, the judge's language in his order was very favorable to CSPI. You can read why on Public Citizen's Consumer Law and Policy Blog, in a <a href="http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2010/07/truth-1-vitaminwater-0.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ConsumerLawPolicyBlog+%28Consumer+Law+%26+Policy+Blog%29">post</a> by CSPI's litigation director Steve Gardner.&nbsp;</div><div style="color: black;"><br /></div>Here are a few highlights. The court said: "Because vitaminwater does not meet minimum nutrition requirements [of FDA law], any health claim about the product is contrary to FDA regulation." This is important because of what is known as the "jelly bean rule." As the court explains:<br /><blockquote>The FDA regulations restricting health claims (or implied claims of “healthiness”) to foods which meet certain minimum nutrient levels, colloquially termed “the jelly bean rule," were developed in order to prevent food producers from encouraging the consumption of “junk foods” by fortifying them with nutrients. </blockquote>In other words, FDA developed this rule precisely with the type of marketing being deployed by vitaminwater in mind: promoting sugary soft drinks under the guise of good health and nutrition.<br /><br />And then there's this:<br /><blockquote>The fact that the actual sugar content of vitaminwater was accurately stated in an FDA-mandated label on the product does not eliminate the possibility that reasonable consumers may be misled.</blockquote>This is important because defendants often try to hide behind the federal nutrition labeling law to avoid being held liable under state consumer deception statutes. But the court rejected this argument. In doing so, the judge cited to an earlier decision in a lawsuit over Gerber’s “Fruit Juice Snacks” that nicely captures the reasoning:<br /><blockquote><div style="font-family: inherit;">We do not think that the FDA requires an ingredient list so that manufacturers can mislead consumers and then rely on the ingredient list to correct those misinterpretations and provide a shield for liability for the deception. Instead, reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list contains more detailed information about the product that confirms other representations on the packaging.</div></blockquote><div style="font-family: inherit;">Translation: Front-of-package marketing should match what's in the nutrition facts on back. Imagine! (My colleague Marion Nestle has long called on FDA to fix the problems associated with front-of-package labeling - see her recent <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/JAMA_10.pdf">commentary</a> in JAMA on this very topic.)</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></div>Last week, author <a href="http://www.johnrobbins.info/">John Robbins</a> wrote on <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/the-dark-side-of-vitaminw_b_669716.html">Huffington Post</a> about the "staggering feat of twisted logic" by lawyers for Coca-Cola by asserting that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage." He wonders:<br /><blockquote>Does this mean that you'd have to be an unreasonable person to think that a product named "vitaminwater," a product that has been heavily and aggressively marketed as a healthy beverage, actually had health benefits? Or does it mean that it's okay for a corporation to lie about its products, as long as they can then turn around and claim that no one actually believes their lies?</blockquote><div style="font-family: inherit;">Excellent questions. At least one judge isn't buying Coke's silly defense. And apparently this case has touched a nerve, as least with HuffPo readers. According to the site's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/index/">stats</a>, Robbins' article is the most popular this week, with close to 600,000 views. Also, so far the article has more than 1,000 comments, with over 13,000 Facebook shares and over 22,000 posts to Twitter. I asked John Robbins what he makes of this response and here's what he told me:<br /><blockquote>I am grateful to the 35,000 or so people who have posted the article I wrote about the dark side of vitaminwater to their Facebook pages and/or tweeted about it. Coca-Cola would like us to believe that it’s a responsible corporate citizen, but the truth is decidedly otherwise. In fact, the company constantly lies to the public. What’s even more insulting, Coke then has the audacity to turn around and say, in court, that a product they have marketed as healthy actually isn’t, and the public would&nbsp; have to be stupid to think otherwise.</blockquote>This case should put all food companies on notice that they can't dress up junk food and nurtitionally-deficient beverages with healthy-sounding names or over-the-top marketing claims.&nbsp;</div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: inherit;">Often once a case survives a motion to dismiss, the defendant is more likely to negotiate a settlement and change its marketing practices to avoid expensive and embarrassing litigation. Stay tuned.</div>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-47149952858583756012010-08-05T19:20:00.000-07:002010-08-08T09:23:31.688-07:00My latest article on AlterNet - how PepsiCo is buying up top-notch health expertsMy latest <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/147738/how_junk_food_giant_pepsico_is_buying_up_high-ranking_experts_to_look_like_a_leader_in_health_and_nutrition/">article</a> on AlterNet is entitled: "How Junk Food Giant PepsiCo Is Buying Up High-Ranking Experts to Look Like a Leader in Health and Nutrition."<br /><br />And the subhead is just as fun: "Pepsi's strategy: Create a research environment so scientists and public health experts don't feel out of place at the corporate HQ of sugar, salt and fat."<br /><br />You can read it <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/147738/how_junk_food_giant_pepsico_is_buying_up_high-ranking_experts_to_look_like_a_leader_in_health_and_nutrition/">there</a> and add your comments.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-77752210107336057502010-08-01T14:21:00.000-07:002010-08-01T14:21:03.781-07:00Yale Alumni Magazine covers PepsiCo / Yale School of Medicine partnership controversy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TFXcMB2iFTI/AAAAAAAAAG0/y94mG8muK30/s1600/Pepsi+logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TFXcMB2iFTI/AAAAAAAAAG0/y94mG8muK30/s200/Pepsi+logo.jpg" width="200" /></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TFXcTZzQoHI/AAAAAAAAAG8/2kv-TyONAuw/s1600/yalemed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TFXcTZzQoHI/AAAAAAAAAG8/2kv-TyONAuw/s320/yalemed.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br /><br /><br />This past March, I <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/03/pepsico-opens-research-center-at-yale.html">blogged</a> about how soda and snack food giant PepsiCo formed a partnership with the Yale School of Medicine, where I earned my public health degree. The grant included $250,000 for a 5-year research fellowship to be awarded to an MD/PhD student. <br /><br />That post apparently set off a chain reaction of coverage of the deal, first in the <a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/scitech-news/2010/03/29/critics-fizz-over-pepsi-gift/">Yale Daily News</a> ("Critics fizz over Pepsi gift"), followed by the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303960604575157782932186528.html">Wall Street Journal</a> ("Boola Moolah! Food Fight at Yale") and on the <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/chronrx/detail?blogid=160&amp;entry_id=61860">San Francisco Chronicle</a> health blog.<br /><br />Now, in the current issue of <a href="http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2010_07/lv_pepsi015.html">Yale Alumni Magazine</a>, fellow alum Carole Bass pens "Critics question Pepsi partnership," quoting me and others on the wisdom of Yale linking arms with the nation's largest promoter of sugar, salt, and fat. Adding to the irony, Yale is already home to the <a href="http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/">Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity</a>, which is headed up by Kelly Brownell, a frequent critic of Big Food. <br /><br />And anyway, what sort of research could possibly come of this largesse that didn't benefit PespiCo? Playing defense in the article is Yale School of Medicine Dean Robert Alpern: "There are numerous safeguards in place to protect the integrity of our research."<br /><br />It's probably a bad sign when you have to use the word "safeguard" to defend taking money. Safeguards are usually for doing risky things, like skateboarding and skydiving, not philanthropy. <br /><br />Alpern also responds to those who worry that the medical school's scientific principles may have been sacrificed in the name of Cheetos and Mountain Dew. Not so, Alpern assures my fellow alumni: "PepsiCo will have no involvement in who is chosen for the fellowship or the project to which the student is assigned." I for one am not assured.<br /><br />The article ends aptly with a quote from Professor Jerome Kassirer, expert in conflicts of interest at Tufts School of Medicine: (Could the author find no such expert at Yale?)<br /><blockquote>The problem is that it's impossible to know whether the money given to the school can in some way have an influence on what people in the [nutrition] department might say about PepsiCo products.</blockquote>And that's just for starters.<br /><br />Back in April I posted the lame <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/04/lame-response-from-yale-pr-office-re.html">response</a> I got from Yale's public affairs office upon signing a <a href="http://food.change.org/petitions/view/tell_yale_to_reject_pepsi_sponsorship_for_nutritional_research">petition</a> started on Change.org, which now has more than 1,000 signatures. But let's keep the pressure on. You can either sign the petition or <a href="mailto:robert.alpern@yale.edu">email</a> Dean Alpern directly.<br /><br />And thanks to reporter Carole Bass for a job well done.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-44544536931829101712010-08-01T11:23:00.000-07:002010-08-01T11:25:16.848-07:00Bangkok Post covers release of Appetite for Profit in Thailand as problem spreads there<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TFW72bnYcoI/AAAAAAAAAGs/HBIQO2Ph_MQ/s1600/Thai.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TFW72bnYcoI/AAAAAAAAAGs/HBIQO2Ph_MQ/s320/Thai.jpg" /></a></div><br />OK, so is not one my usual blog posts, but I can't help sharing my excitement. As I wrote about <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/06/letter-from-ngo-in-thailand-re-appetite.html">previously</a>, my book has been translated into Thai, with 1,000 copies already distributed.<br /><br />The translation and distribution of Appetite for Profit was commissioned by the Chulalongkorn University-based Health Consumer Protection Project, which is now releasing more copies, as was reported yesterday by the Bangkok Post. The <a href="http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/188756/taking-a-bite-out-of-fast-food">article</a> ("Taking a bite of out fast food: An expose details the industry's attack on food") includes graphics with pull-out quotes from the book.<br /><br />If you're wondering why folks in Thailand would be interested in a book that is admittedly pretty America-centric, it seems there are warning signs that the problem is spreading there. For example, a survey conducted by the Thai Office of the Basic Education Commission found that sodas are available at 20 percent of the 20,000 schools in the country.<br /><br />And this will sound familiar. Another study found some schools had agreed to allow a beverage giant to sell soda on school property in exchange for the company providing a van.<br /><br />Here is how Siriwat Tiptaradol, Public Health Ministry deputy permanent secretary and the editor of the Thai version of the book explains it: "The influence of the food industry isn't limited to the US, but extends all over the world." The article also makes the case for policy change: <br /><blockquote>Developing countries like Thailand should be alert about this transnational issue and work with authorities, academics, and the public and private sectors to come up with policies to safeguard people from conditions that result from poor diet such as diabetes, high blood pressure and strokes. Otherwise, these problems will end up costing billions of baht in health care spending every year, Tiptaradol said.</blockquote><br />A wise call for prevention before its too late.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-91576443084465717632010-07-22T15:50:00.000-07:002010-07-22T20:52:58.856-07:00Family doctors debate if they should take Coke money, after they took it<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TEkJnuJLOHI/AAAAAAAAAGk/Ia6y6nvaZCU/s1600/cancoke.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TEkJnuJLOHI/AAAAAAAAAGk/Ia6y6nvaZCU/s200/cancoke.jpg" width="107" /></a><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TEjItPcr8aI/AAAAAAAAAGc/iIP_gstBIGc/s1600/AAFP.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="88" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TEjItPcr8aI/AAAAAAAAAGc/iIP_gstBIGc/s200/AAFP.gif" width="200" /></a></div><br />In this week's <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/07/19/coca-cola-funds-family-doc-group-what-do-you-think/">Health Blog</a>, the Wall Street Journal's Katherine Hobson asks readers to chime in on a "debate" among family doctors over the ethics of corporate sponsorship of medicine. <br /><br />But first, the backdrop. Last year, the American Academy of Family Physicians <a href="http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/media/releases/newsreleases-statements-2009/consumeralliance-cocacola.html">announced</a> "a new corporate partnership program" and its first partner was to be The Coca-Cola Company. Soon thereafter, about 20 doctors resigned from the organization in protest, drawing attention to the matter by <i>Food Politics </i>author <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/10/family-doctors-resign-from-aafp-over-coke-partnership/">Marion Nestle</a> as well as advocacy groups such as the <a href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/621/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1860">Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood</a>. (Full disclosure: I serve on CCFC's steering committee.)<br /><br />The grant amount was <a href="http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-fitness/2009/10/06/family-physicians-group-announces-a-new-partner-coke.html">described</a> as being in the "strong six figures" by AAFP. Here is how the group described the partnership in its October 2009 press release:<br /><blockquote>The Consumer Alliance is a program that allows corporate partners like The Coca-Cola Company to work with the AAFP to educate consumers about the role their products can play in a healthy, active lifestyle. As part of this partnership, The Coca-Cola Company is providing a grant to the AAFP to develop consumer education content on beverages and sweeteners for FamilyDoctor.org, an award-winning consumer health and wellness resource.</blockquote><a name='more'></a>Consumer education? That must explain how a search for "Coca-Cola" on <a href="http://familydoctor.org/">FamilyDoctor.org</a>, brings up helpful content on <a href="http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/healthy/food/general-nutrition/1013.html">hydration</a> like how "even caffeinated drinks, such as coffee, tea and soda, count toward your daily water intake," and <a href="http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/healthy/physical/basics/1014.html">why sports drinks are useful for athletes</a>, and how safe the artificial sweeteners <a href="http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/healthy/food/general-nutrition/1006/1007.html">aspartame</a> and <a href="http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/healthy/food/general-nutrition/1006/1009.html">saccharine</a> are. All of this brought to you by Coca-Cola under the guise of consumer education. Even the disclaimers on each of these pages is misleading: <br /><blockquote><i>This content was developed with general underwriting support from The Coca-Cola Company.</i></blockquote>That makes it sound as if the Coca-Cola is just paying someone else to do the writing. But it appears the company is directing the substance of the content as well, since the verbiage is pretty similar to that found on Coca-Cola's own website on these very topics. (See for example, the company's <a href="http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/ourcompany/hal_sweeteners_myths.html">page</a> on sweetener "facts and myths.)<br /><br />It's bad enough for a medical trade organization (and "award-winning" website) to be bought off by American's number one promoter of unhealthy beverages, especially to children, but now apparently, almost a year later, the issue has turned into fertile ground for navel gazing as a way of justifying the move after the fact.<br /><br />This week, AAFP's journal, the Annals of Family Medicine, has published two perspectives on the matter. One <a href="http://annfammed.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/4/354">penned</a> by Dr. Howard Brody, AAFP member and director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch. He's not in favor of the idea:<br /><blockquote>The physician has a duty to prescribe medications or make dietary recommendations based on scientific evidence. The companies have an interest in selling more beverages, or more drugs, regardless of the evidence.</blockquote>Precisely. In <a href="http://annfammed.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/4/359">contrast</a>, AAFP president, Dr. Lori Heim, sees no need to assume conflict of interest:<br /><blockquote>To gauge an individual or organization’s ethics, one must view its behavior over time, define the goal of that behavior and compare the outcome with the mission and values. Within this context, one can determine whether the assumption or appearance of conflict of interest or ethical lapse was, in fact, correct.</blockquote>What? She lost me somewhere between outcome and values.<br /><br />Taking money from Coca-Cola is not a science experiment that you watch over time, gather data, and then publish the analyzed results. But if one were to approach the issue that way, there's no shortage of evidence of Coca-Cola's "ethical lapses." Whether your concern is <a href="http://www.commercialexploitation.org/actions/cokesharesholderstatement.htm">marketing to children</a>, <a href="http://killercoke.org/">labor abuses</a>, or <a href="http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/">contaminating water supplies</a> in developing nations, Coca-Cola would be the one company you'd not choose as a partner. Journalist <a href="http://www.michaelblanding.com/">Michael Blanding</a> has written an entire book called <i><a href="http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781583334065,00.html">The Coke Machine: The Dirty Truth Behind the World's Favorite Soft Drink</a></i>, due out in September, which chronicles these misdeeds and more.<br /><br />But why, <i>almost a year later</i>, is the AAFP journal publishing what amounts to an academic debate between two doctors over an issue that has obviously already been decided? I realize that wheels of academic publishing turn very slowly and that perhaps these articles were submitted months ago, but why was there no public debate <i>before </i>AAFP took the money?<br /><br />All this does now is give credence to idea that taking corporate money is a worthy subject of debate in the annals of medical journals, right up there with questions like, what sort of treatment a doctor should give patient X or Y. What about those 20 member doctors who resigned in protest last year? Where are their opinions published in any medical journal? This no debate at all. It's simply an effort to whitewash the situation so now AAFP can say: See, we grappled with the issue in our journal under the heading "Ethical Issues." Oh and by the way, we're keeping Coke's cash.<br /><br />As I <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/03/pepsico-opens-research-center-at-yale.html">blogged</a> about in March, Coca-Cola isn't the only soda company seeking to infiltrate the medical establishment. The Yale School of Medicine has partnered with PepsiCo to allow the soft drink and snack food giant to fund a research lab and fellowship. Where does this end? At what point will we no longer have truly science-driven research institutions and unfettered medical professionals available to help Americans sort through the confusing clutter of health and nutrition information? Or has that time already come? Let's hope not.<br /><br />You can send a letter to AAFP asking them to end the Coke deal <a href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/621/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1860">here</a>, on the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood's website.<a href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/621/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1860"> </a>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-40727359428318431182010-07-14T20:46:00.000-07:002010-07-14T20:46:51.455-07:00Nestle Stoops to New Low, Launches Barge to Peddle Junk Food on the Amazon River to Brazil's Poor - AlterNet articleAfter previously <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/06/all-aboard-for-ice-cream-nestle.html">blogging</a> about the Nestle junk food barge, <a href="http://alternet.org/">AlterNet</a> asked me to write an article on the topic. How could I say no? Please read the <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/147446/nestle_stoops_to_new_low%2C_launches_barge_to_peddle_junk_food_on_the_amazon_river_to_brazil%27s_poor">expanded version</a> of this story, this time with plenty of quotes, including an NGO in Brazil working to stop this very sort of marketing.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-74413408218994283552010-07-11T19:50:00.000-07:002010-07-18T10:50:26.897-07:00Happy Meal Lawsuit Update: Is McDonald's Playing Games with Nutrition Facts?Last week I <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/07/mcdonalds-facing-potential-lawsuit-for.html">blogged</a> about how the Center for Public Interest (CSPI) is threatening a lawsuit against McDonald's for using toys to promote Happy Meals to kids. Since then, McDonald's has responded, sort of. In a <a href="http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company/mcd_faq/response_to_cspi.html">letter</a> apparently fed to the press even before CSPI got to see it, McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner attempts to "set the record straight:"<br /><blockquote>We have a long history of working with responsible NGOs who are interested in serious dialogue and meaningful engagement; and we are open to constructive feedback. </blockquote>Really? Like how McDonald's worked with those two activists in the UK by suing them for libel in the 1990s for putting out a simple brochure? The case (dubbed <a href="http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/">McLibel</a>) spawned a book and a movie and became notorious for being the longest English trial ever, not to mention the stupidest public relations move short of New Coke.<br /><br />Skinner continues to dig his own grave:<br /><blockquote>Ronald McDonald also serves as an ambassador for children's well-being, promoting messages around physical activity and living a balanced, active lifestyle.</blockquote>Right. That must explain why an entire campaign was launched in March by Corporate Accountability International to <a href="http://retireronald.org/">Retire Ronald</a> based on an <a href="http://retireronald.org/learn/index">investigation</a> that showed how the clown's main job is to promote McDonald's unhealthy foods, in schools and just about anywhere children can be found.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>And finally, Skinner asserts the company has "more choice and variety than ever before" in Happy Meals, and:<br /><blockquote>Furthermore, McDonald's makes available in-depth, comprehensive nutrition information about our food to give parents the support they need to make appropriate choices for their children.</blockquote>OK, now this is kind of true, and is where things get interesting. It appears that McDonald's has already changed the nutrition facts on its website for Happy Meals. But only some Happy Meals, the ones that come with "Apple Dippers," the healthy alternative to French fries.<br /><br />In its June 22 <a href="http://cspinet.org/new/201006221.html">press release</a> about the potential lawsuit, CSPI complained that:<br /><blockquote>Of the 24 possible Happy Meal combinations that McDonald’s describes on its website, all exceed 430 calories (430 is one-third of the 1,300- calorie recommended daily intake for children 4 to 8 years old). </blockquote>In documents provided by CSPI, here is what the <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.com/CSPI/Happy_Meals_Nutrition_List%20061510.pdf">nutrition listing</a> looked like on the McDonald's website as of June 15. If you compare these figures to this <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.com/CSPI/Happy_Meals_Nutrition_List%20062510.pdf">listing</a>, which says is effective as of June 25, <i>just 3 days after</i> <i>CSPI's news release about the lawsuit</i>, you will see for each of the Happy Meals that come with Apple Dippers, the number of calories has been reduced by exactly 70.<br /><br />Could that be because McDonald's has decided not to include the caramel dipping sauce in the total? Who knows? Any clever nutritionists out there want to help?<br /><br />Not that this re-do really helps McDonald's all that much, given that it only makes three of the 12 Happy Meal combinations with Apple Dippers below the 430 calorie level that CSPI says should be the cut-off. (And of course, all the others are still way over 430.) Never mind, CEO Jim Skinner has a retort to CSPI on that too:<br /><blockquote>On this point, it seems that you purposefully skewed your evaluation of our Happy Meals by putting them in the context of a highly conservative 1,300 calorie per day requirement. I'm sure you know this category generally applies to the youngest and most sedentary children.</blockquote>The youngest? Ages 4-8 seems to fit squarely into McDonald's Happy Meal demographic. The most sedentary? So now McDonald's is saying as long as kids hop on the treadmill, Happy Meals full of chicken nuggets, fries, and soda is A-OK? You won't find a health professional (not on Big Food's payroll) to go along with that idea. <br /><br />Also, as CSPI also pointed out, in 2007, McDonald’s pledged not to advertise to children meals that have more than 600 calories, and even with the revised calorie listings, 4 of the 24 combinations are still in violation of that pledge. Whatever the calories, it appears McDonald's is headed to court. Here is Steve Gardner, CSPI's litigation director, in response to the McDonald's letter:<br /><blockquote>We're encouraged to read that McDonald's is signaling a willingness to make changes that are in the best interests of its customers. We hope that McDonald's takes us up on our offer to negotiate an end to the practice of using toys to market unhealthful foods directly to children. If it doesn't, that will all but guarantee that we will have to resort to litigation.</blockquote>Stay tuned.<br /><br />Update: Reporter Melanie Warner called McDonald's to get an explanation for the calorie change. A spokesperson claimed they were just correcting a mistake. You can read her take at <a href="http://industry.bnet.com/food/10002721/mcdonalds-magic-calories-disappear-from-happy-meals-after-chain-is-threatned-with-lawsuit/">BNET</a>.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-12719059073037910422010-07-05T10:23:00.000-07:002010-07-05T13:31:01.279-07:00McDonald's Facing Potential Lawsuit for Luring Kids With Happy Meal Toys - It's About Time<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: inherit; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TDIUpsAZjUI/AAAAAAAAAGM/7ltM9hO7hQY/s1600/happy_meal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TDIUpsAZjUI/AAAAAAAAAGM/7ltM9hO7hQY/s200/happy_meal.jpg" width="192" /></a></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">It was only a matter of time. Last month, the <a href="http://www.cspinet.org/">Center for Science in the Public Interest</a> (CSPI) served McDonald's with a notice of its intent to sue if the fast food giant continues to use toys to promote Happy Meals. (An "intent to sue" letter is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit in some states.) The basis for the potential case is that using toys to market to small children is unfair and deceptive under the consumer protection laws in a number of states. According to CSPI's <a href="http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/mcdonalds-demand-062210.pdf">letter</a>, McDonald's toy promotions violate the laws of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, and the District of Columbia.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">CSPI's litigation director Stephen Gardner explained in a <a href="http://cspinet.org/new/201006221.html">statement</a> that "McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to our children. McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity."</span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;">The letter more specifically spells out the legal basis for the case:</span></div><blockquote style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">McDonald’s practices are predatory and wrong. They are also illegal, because marketing to kids under eight is (1) inherently deceptive, because young kids are not developmentally advanced enough to understand the persuasive intent of marketing; and (2) unfair to parents, because marketing to children undermines parental authority and interferes with their ability to raise healthy children.</span></blockquote><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">This is important because CSPI is saying that McDonald's practices are both deceptive to children and unfair to parents, the latter to deflect the argument that it's really all the parents' fault. For that perspective, CSPI's <a href="http://cspinet.org/new/201006221.html">press release</a> qu<span style="color: purple;"></span>otes </span><span style="font-size: small;">Sheila Nesbitt of Minnesota, a parent of a six-year-old boy and a three-year-old girl:</span></div><blockquote style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">McDonald’s makes my job as a parent more difficult. They market cheap toys that appeal to kids and it works. My kids always want to go to McDonald’s because of the toys. I try my best to educate my kids about healthy eating but it's hard when I am competing against the allure of a new Shrek toy.</span></blockquote><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">According to a CSPI <a href="http://www.cspinet.org/new/200808041.html">study</a>, despite McDonald's recent attempts at healthwashing Happy Meals with Apple Dippers and milk, French fries come with Happy Meals 93 percent of the time. The letter also explains the harm that Happy Meals cause:</span></div><blockquote style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">McDonald’s practice of dangling toys in front of children is illegal, regardless of what meal the child eventually gets. Not only does the practice mobilize “pester power,” but it also imprints on developing minds brand loyalty for McDonald’s. Because most of the company’s options are of poor nutritional quality, eating Happy Meals promotes eating habits that are virtually assured to undermine children’s health.</span></blockquote><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Next, the letter explains how voluntary, self-regulation by industry has been a dismal failure:</span></div><blockquote style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"> Through the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, McDonald’s pledged to advertise only Happy Meals that meet McDonald’s nutrition standards for children. However, that pledge fails to address McDonald’s insidious use of toys to market its products to children. Regardless of the Happy Meal combinations shown in advertising, the vast majority of possible Happy Meals are nutritionally inappropriate for children. </span></blockquote><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">This is important because (as documented in my book, <i>Appetite for Profit</i>) McDonald's, along with every other major food company, has been hiding behind the veil of self-regulation of marketing to children for years. And sadly, the federal government has so far been going along with the charade. This lawsuit could become one way to expose this ruse, and even lay the groundwork for changing the laws to protect children. Because companies fear lawsuits even more than they fear regulation, the case could be a game-changer.</span></div><br /><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">McDonald's response in the press has been to defend the Happy Meal, not surprisingly. William Whitman, vice president of communications for McDonald’s USA, told <a href="http://www.nrn.com/article/cspi-threatens-sue-mcdonalds-over-happy-meal-toys">Nation's Restaurant News</a>: “We are proud of our Happy Meal, which gives our customers wholesome food and toys of the highest quality and safety. Getting a toy is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald’s.”</span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">It's all fun until someone gets hurt. Chicken McNuggets are wholesome? Here are the ingredients, as listed on McDonald's own <a href="http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/itemDetailInfo.do?itemID=10077">website</a>: </span><span style="font-size: small;">&nbsp;</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;">White boneless chicken, water, food starch-modified, salt, seasoning (autolyzed yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavoring (botanical source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, rosemary), sodium phosphates, seasoning (canola oil, mono- and diglycerides, extractives of rosemary). Battered and breaded with: water, enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour, food starch-modified, salt, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium lactate), spices, wheat starch, whey, corn starch. Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness). Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent.</span></blockquote><span style="font-size: small;">That last ingredient sounds especially wholesome.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Toys of the highest quality and safety, like those <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/04/nation/la-na-mcdonalds-recall-20100604">toxic Shrek glasses</a>?</span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br /><span style="font-size: small;">As I wrote about <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/04/santa-clara-county-begins-fast-food-toy.html">here</a> in April, </span><span style="font-size: small;">the Santa Clara County, Calif., Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance to stop chain restaurants from using toys or other kid-oriented incentives to market unhealthy meals. This case is a logical next step and is certainly more efficient than going county by county to get fast food chains to halt this insidious practice. Of course, this case will only be about McDonald's, for now. Other food chains (think Burger King) that don't want to be next may be forced to re-think their kids marketing practices as well. </span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Of course, already the potential case is already being <a href="http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/mcdonalds-happy-meal-toys-lawsuit/19526740/">attacked</a> by those who say it's all up to parents. CSPI's executive director Michael Jacobson responds to the parental argument this way:&nbsp;</span></div><blockquote style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">I’m sure that industry’s defenders will blame parents for not saying ‘no’ to their children. Parents <i>do</i> bear much of the responsibility, but multi-billion-dollar corporations make parents’ job nearly impossible by giving away toys and bombarding kids with slick advertising.</span></blockquote><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">So will this case mean the end of all toys in Happy Meals or will CSPI settle for McDonald's setting nutrition standards on those meals the company markets with toys? CSPI's not saying, but Michael Jacobson did say in the press release that </span><span style="font-size: small;">"regardless of the nutritional quality of what’s being sold, the practice of tempting kids with toys is inherently deceptive." I couldn't agree more.</span><span style="font-size: small;">&nbsp;</span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">McDonald's has 30 days (from June 22) to stop marketing with toys before a case is filed. I asked Steve Gardner today if he's heard back from McDonald's yet and here's what he said:&nbsp;</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;">We've gotten an acknowledgment from McDonald's that they got the letter, but no response to the suggestion that we discuss before suit is filed. One thing is certain: if McDonald's chooses not to negotiate, we will sue. </span></blockquote></div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">And that's when things will get interesting. For those who think lawsuits are too extreme, consider this: We have only three branches of government, and two have been failing us for too long. The executive branch, even with Obama at the helm, has shown little interest in fixing the problem of junk food marketing to children. And the legislative branch (aka Congress) has been bought out by corporate interests for decades. That leaves only the judicial branch, which is why this case make sense, and why it was only a matter of time until someone sued over this issue. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Meantime, you can take action by <a href="https://secure2.convio.net/cspi/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&amp;page=UserAction&amp;id=1001">sending an email message</a> to McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner asking the company to stop marketing toys to kids. You can also join a related campaign by Corporate Accountability International asking McDonald's to <a href="http://retireronald.org/">Retire Ronald.</a></span></div>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-5995704741311620812010-07-01T07:45:00.000-07:002010-08-22T17:06:50.463-07:00How Did PepsiCo's CEO Infiltrate the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Annual Report on Obesity?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TCwfxcHSE1I/AAAAAAAAAFc/GfzpePe64Pw/s1600/logo-TFAH.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="122" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TCwfxcHSE1I/AAAAAAAAAFc/GfzpePe64Pw/s400/logo-TFAH.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />Because I tend to focus my attention on news being generated by the major food companies, I don't always pay close attention to the latest scary reports on obesity data. So when the annual report called <a href="http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2010/Obesity2010Report.pdf"><i>F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing America</i></a> came out this week, I just thought, Oh there's that report again with the awful name, with the same gloomy numbers as last year.<br /><br />But then I got an interesting email message forwarded from New York University professor and <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/">food politics</a> maven Marion Nestle that made me realize I should pay closer attention to this year's report. The email was from Harold Goldstein, executive director of the highly effective non-profit, California Center for Public Health Advocacy. He was questioning how the CEO of PepsiCo was given 2 pages of airtime in the report. What was that? The CEO of a major company contributing to the very facts and figures contained within the 124-page document was offered space to make her case?<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>Under the heading, "A Personal Perspective," here is just a sampling of what PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi had to say: (her entire missive is on pages 44-5 of the <a href="http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2010/Obesity2010Report.pdf">report</a>)<br /><blockquote>At the heart of America's obesity epidemic us achieving a balance between the calories we put into our bodies and the calories we burn. It's a simple equation but a complex challenge that companies must help their employees and consumers to overcome.... <br />&nbsp; <br />We firmly believe companies have a responsibility to provide consumers with more information and more choices so they can make better decisions... I believe the food industry can play a leading role in this area. In fact, we must play a leading role... It’s a challenge, but increasingly PepsiCo and other companies recognize and accept our responsibility to help our associates and consumers succeed.</blockquote>OK, so this rhetoric is certainly nothing new and on its own reads like the usual PR-speak that we've come to expect from the likes of the maker of Cheetos and Mountain Dew. But let's place these remarks into context. This report, which has been published annually for the past seven years, is put out by the organization, <a href="http://healthyamericans.org/">Trust for America's Health</a> (TFAH) a fairly well-known public health nonprofit based in Washington, DC. Obesity is one of&nbsp; TFAH's several issue areas and they describe themselves as a "non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority." Noble enough.<br /><br />This report gets a lot of press each year and is especially popular for how it ranks each state according to its obesity statistics. It also provides federal and state policy progress in a variety of areas, is fairly comprehensive, and relies heavily on government sources. In other words, the document makes a major contribution to the national conversation regarding obesity prevention and public policy.<br /><br />Moreover, the report is co-published by its funder, the <a href="http://www.rwjf.org/">Robert Wood Johnson Foundation</a> (RWJF) the nation's largest healthcare foundation. One of RWJF's most ambitious goals is to "reverse the childhood obesity epidemic by 2015." Since <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/robert-wood-johnson-foundation-announces-500-million-commitment-to-reverse-childhood-obesity-in-us-57834812.html">2007</a>, the foundation has backed that up with an impressive $500 million in grants to myriad programs around the nation. These days, it's hard to run into a childhood obesity prevention program that <i>isn't</i> funded by RWJF. <br /><br />So how did the nation's largest healthcare funder and a prominent public health organization let the nation's largest food company get airtime in their annual obesity report? Good question.<br /><br />In the introduction to the report is this attempted explanation: "TFAH asked the following policy-makers and experts in the field of obesity to offer their perspectives on what needs to be done to address the obesity crisis in the United States." And then PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi is listed among other contributors including Senator Tom Harkin and Kelly Brownell, director of Yale's Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity. That's quite a coup, for CEO Nooyi to be listed among the very same experts who are fighting PepsiCo's lobbying efforts.&nbsp; <br /><br />Reporter Melanie Warner, who just published an excellent piece about this at BNET, (<a href="http://industry.bnet.com/food/10002596/obesity-report-chronicles-the-sad-state-of-america-and-tells-us-how-great-pepsico-is/">Obesity Report Chronicles the Sad State of America -- and Tells Us How Great PepsiCo Is</a>) asked TFAH to explain itself. Here is what she learned:<br /><blockquote><b style="font-weight: normal;">Laura Segal</b>, spokesperson for the Trust for America’s Health, says that having Nooyi’s comments in the report was an innocent attempt to have the “industry perspective” and not the result of any shady financial relationship. “We reached out to a number of companies and Pepsi was the first one to respond. We want to represent a range of opinions and the industry segment is a significant component of dealing with obesity,” says Segal.</blockquote>Harold Goldstein (who gets the credit for first sounding the alarm) sees this incident as part of a troubling trend:&nbsp; <br /><blockquote>There seems to be a growing interest among public health organizations to appear "unbiased" when discussing obesity prevention by providing a forum for industry. It would be the equivalent of providing a forum for the tobacco industry to espouse their "personal responsibility" message in reports on smoking-related deaths. </blockquote><blockquote>As a national public health organization, I would have hoped TFAH would provide a clear and scientifically based public health perspective on issues like personal responsibility, rather than simply providing a forum for dissenting perspectives.&nbsp; </blockquote>Also, the placement of the PepsiCo text is either suspect or ironic. It comes right after two pages describing recent efforts by various states to enact soda taxes, a contentious issue that PepsiCo lobbies hard against, despite mounting evidence that it may be one of the most effective policies available. Recognizing the connection, Harold Goldstein describes what Nooyi left out of her statement:<br /><blockquote>She doesn’t mention the highly sophisticated multimillion dollar national marketing and lobbying campaign they have undertaken to promote themselves as good corporate citizens and undermine efforts to establish state and local policies to reduce consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, which have been the single leading contributor to the obesity epidemic.&nbsp; </blockquote>&nbsp;It's bad enough when the government invites industry executives to "workshops" on food marketing, and for years we have seen corporate sponsorships of nonprofits such as the American Heart Association and the American Dietetic Association. But this hurts even more, because it was unexpected. If we can't even read a major public health report on obesity data and policy solutions without running into a PR statement by Big Food, then no place is safe.<br /><br />As Melanie Warner points out: "the inclusion of Nooyi’s remarks in a public health report feels a bit like if Congress were to suddenly decide to give BP several pages with which to defend itself in forthcoming congressional reports on the oil spill." <br /><br />While most of the information contained within the report may still be reliable, the fact that PepsiCo was allowed to participate also raises the question, what other editorial decisions were made that might have been favorable to the food industry? We'll never know, and that's the heart of the problem: Once the door is open to providing industry a forum in a public health context, no longer can we trust that we are getting the best information available from those sources.<br /><br />Finally, I ask<span style="font-family: inherit;">ed Marion Nestle for her reaction:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;">By this time, research has clearly demonstrated that partnerships and alliances of health organizations with food companies benefits the food companies far more than the health organizations.&nbsp; The goals of public health and food companies differ. Food companies enter such alliances for public relations and to deflect public attention from the need to regulate their marketing practices. RWJF ought to be well aware of the risk of such alliances and to protect its integrity against them.</span></blockquote>What do you think? It would be great to hear from RWJF grantees. You can make comments on this blog anonymously if you prefer. <br /><div class="MsoNormal"></div>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-70384575650509524072010-06-19T16:06:00.000-07:002010-07-01T13:41:35.460-07:00All Aboard for Ice Cream: Nestle Peddling Junk Food on Amazon River to Reach Brazil's Slums<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TB1HcJ5IidI/AAAAAAAAAFU/a34dqQEHdpU/s1600/copy_amazon_supermarket_boat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VrYEmyMvBYA/TB1HcJ5IidI/AAAAAAAAAFU/a34dqQEHdpU/s320/copy_amazon_supermarket_boat.jpg" /></a></div><br />I have many things to do today and writing this post was not on my list. But as I was cleaning out my in-box, an especially disgusting news item caught my attention and writing about it is the only way I know to release my outrage. My version of screaming from the rooftop.<br /><br />The offending article, on Bloomberg.com (<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&amp;sid=aU9qbH2RR2gI">Nestle to Sail Amazon Rivers to Reach Consumers</a>) describes how the world's largest food company will soon "begin sailing a supermarket barge down two Amazon river tributaries as it competes with Unilever to reach emerging-market customers cut off from branded goods." <br /><br />A <i>supermarket barge?</i> Has Big Food already run out of customers in cities and other locales that are more readily accessible by land? <i>Cut off from branded goods?</i> I don't think these people are lost or have been camping out too long, they're just living their lives. They probably don't even realize they are missing out on <a href="http://www.nestleusa.com/pubourbrands/brands.aspx">Toll House, Raisinets, and Sno-Caps</a>. But no matter, if there are people out there so backwards to still be subsisting on food found in nature, Big Food will find them, by land or by sea, and set them straight. <br /><br />The boat, with more than <i>1,000 square feet of supermarket space</i>, will journey to 18 cities, reaching 800,000 potential consumers in Brazil, and will even provide access for the disabled and elderly.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>But how can these poor Bralizian residents even afford to purchase processed foods when they are probably struggling as it is? No worries, Nestle has that little problem all figured out too. According to the article:<br /><blockquote>Nestle sells 3,950 products in “popularly positioned” formats designed for low-income consumers. Smaller packs allow poor consumers to afford branded goods like richer shoppers rather than turn to generic alternatives. The Swiss company has a team of 7,000 saleswomen who peddle packs of Nestle goods door-to-door in Brazilian slums.</blockquote>Translation: Because Nestle knows that poor people cannot afford the same super-sized packages commonly sold in the West, the company sells starter products to get poor customers hooked on their brands. The threat of "generic alternatives" looms large because, god forbid, these people figure out that juice is just juice and brand really makes no difference. The strategy of hooking poor people on smaller, cheaper goods is commonplace but was pioneered by the <a href="http://www.procor.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=1111205">tobacco industry</a>, which still sells single cigarettes in developing world. (The practice is banned in most other nations.) <br /><br />And what, pray tell, will the floating supermarket carry? Surely, necessary food items for these hard-to-reach residents. Bloomberg.com notes, "The vessel will carry 300 different goods including chocolate, yogurt, ice cream and juices." Yup, all the essentials. But wait maybe Nestle is taking care of the poor's nutrition needs after all: "The company often adds nutrients such as iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A to address deficiencies among the poor." How heartwarming. <br /><br />Nestle's <a href="http://www.nestle.com/MediaCenter/NewsandFeatures/AllNewsFeatures/Nestle-sails-supermarket-on-the-Amazon.htm">press release</a> proudly announcing the vessel's voyage adds: <br /><blockquote>The floating supermarket develops another trading channel which offers access to Nutrition, Health and Wellness to the remote communities in the north region of Brazil.</blockquote>Who better to teach nutrition than the maker of Drumstick ice cream? <br /><br />As I wrote about previously <a href="http://appetiteforprofit.blogspot.com/2010/05/wondering-where-in-world-big-food-will.html">here</a>, with Western nations becoming more and more saturated while regulatory pressures mount in the U.S. to curb unsavory marketing practices, Big Food has no choice but to step up the sales pace in the developing world. As the article explains:<br /><blockquote>Nestle had 2009 food and beverage sales growth in emerging markets of 8.5 percent, more than double the rate of its total business. The company has said it aims to boost the proportion of sales from developing countries to 45 percent in a decade from 35 percent now. </blockquote>Just in case you missed that: Within ten years, the world's largest food company will do <i>almost half of its business in the developing world. </i>That's astounding by any measure of any industry.<br /><br />And yes, Brazil is already showing signs of diet-related health problems. This <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890260,00.html">article</a> from Time magazine last year describes the concern over rising obesity rates found by Brazil's own Health Ministry. While the numbers there are still small compared to here, as Nestle keeps reloading its ice cream barge to reach more "brand-deprived" poor people, it won't take long before that gap narrows.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com53tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-62011696814795694072010-06-12T14:02:00.000-07:002010-06-12T15:40:25.272-07:00Letter from NGO in Thailand re: Appetite for Profit<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">At the risk of tooting my own horn, just wanted to share this really nice letter I got from the director <span style="font-size: small;">of the <a href="http://www.thaihealthconsumer.org/"><span class="yshortcuts">Health Consumer Protection Program</span></a> at <st1:placename w:st="on"><span lang="EN-GB">Chulalongkorn</span></st1:placename><span lang="EN-GB"> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></span>, <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bangkok</st1:place></st1:city>. They had previously requested permission to translate <i>Appetite for Profit </i>and distribute 1,000 copies of the book. Apparently, it's been a hit, so they need more copies, and I am happy to oblige. </span></div><blockquote style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;">Dear Ms. Michele Simon, </span> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp; </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">I would like to express my gratitude for your permission for the translation and the printing of translated version of the book <i>“Appetite for Profit: How the <span class="yshortcuts">food Industry</span> Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back</i>” of which 1,000 copies were published. Free copies have been distributed to local consumer advocates and those in alternative agricultural networks in country. Apparently, the book is welcome with great enthusiasm as it has broadened the readers’ perspective on food industry system and impact of the industry’s marketing manipulation towards the public’s well-being. Such awareness will definitely help protecting Thai consumers’ right and eventually promoting their healthier eating habit. </span> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">&nbsp; </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">As the first edition is running out so fast, I would like to ask for your permission for a reprint of yet another 1,000 copies. This lot will be distributed without any charge to the general public as well as to university libraries across the country.&nbsp; </span> </div></blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">Yours sincerely, </span> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">&nbsp;<v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype></span><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 36pt; width: 144.75pt;" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cintel%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image001.emz"></v:imagedata></v:shape> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">Association Professor Vithaya Koolsomboon, Ph.D.</span> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">Director of <span class="yshortcuts">Health Consumer Protection Program</span>,</span> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"><st1:placename w:st="on"><span lang="EN-GB">Chulalongkorn</span></st1:placename><span lang="EN-GB"> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></span>, <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bangkok</st1:place></st1:city> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></div></blockquote>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32192549.post-62088950786642919062010-06-03T21:45:00.000-07:002010-06-03T21:48:29.015-07:00PepsiCo Teams up with White House to Whitewash Worthless Snack and Sodas - AlterNet articleFood and beverage giant PepsiCo claims to be "investing in a healthier future for people and our planet." But how is that possible when their top-selling products include Mountain Dew and Doritos?&nbsp; <br /><br />Check out my article on PepsiCo over at <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/147064/pepsi_teams_up_with_white_house_to_whitewash_worthless_snacks_and_sodas/">AlterNet</a>. Please post comments there, if you're so inclined, since editors love that.Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com1